Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest

On Saturday, the Women’s March on Washington will kick off what opponents of the incoming administration hope will be a new era of demonstrations against the Republican agenda. But in some states, nonviolent demonstrating may soon carry increased legal risks — including punishing fines and significant prison terms — for people who participate in protests involving civil disobedience. Over the past few weeks, Republican legislators across the country have quietly introduced a number of proposals to criminalize and discourage peaceful protest.

The proposals, which strengthen or supplement existing laws addressing the blocking or obstructing of traffic, come in response to a string of high-profile highway closures and other actions led by Black Lives Matter activists and opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Republicans reasonably expect an invigorated protest movement during the Trump years.

In North Dakota, for instance, Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally. In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway. Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.” Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions. And in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests.

Protesters demonstrating against the Dakota Access oil pipeline stand on a burned-out truck near Cannon Ball, N.D., which they removed a day earlier from a long-closed bridge on a state highway near their camp, Nov. 21, 2016.

Photo: James MacPherson/AP

The anti-protesting bills have alarmed civil liberties watchdogs.

“This trend of anti-protest legislation dressed up as ‘obstruction’ bills is deeply troubling,” said Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, who views such bills as violations of the First Amendment. “A law that would allow the state to charge a protester $10,000 for stepping in the wrong place, or encourage a driver to get away with manslaughter because the victim was protesting, is about one thing: chilling protest.”

In North Dakota, the author of the bill that would permit the killing of protestors has linked his legislation directly to anti-pipeline activists’ successful protests that involved obstructing roadways. Although the bill ostensibly requires drivers to have acted “negligently” or accidentally in killing a protestor, the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,” according to the Bismarck Tribune.

“If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue,” said Kempenich. “Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of their right to drive down the road.”

Republican legislators behind the anti-protesting bill in Minnesota have also said that their effort is in response to an increasing number of highway closures by activists. In recent months, Black Lives Matter protests have made national news for shutting down major freeways in Minneapolis, most recently in July when a group of protestors blocked a main downtown thoroughfare to protest the police shooting of Philando Castile. The bill elevates such protesting to a “gross misdemeanor,” punishable by both a year in jail and a fine of $3,000.

In addition to the highway-protesting bill, Minnesota lawmakers also proposed a separate piece of legislation that greatly increases penalties for nonviolent cases involving “obstructing the legal process.” Under the bill’s language, nonviolent obstruction of authorities would carry “imprisonment of not less than 12 months” and a fine of up to $10,000.

Jordan S. Kushner, a Minneapolis civil rights attorney who has represented Black Lives Matter protesters, said this latter bill was “most alarming” because of its dramatic penalty enhancement and its apparent targeting of nonviolent protests.

“The statute is very heavily abused by police to charge people with crimes in response to minor resistance to police based on good faith disagreements with what they are doing,” Kushner told The Intercept in an email. “It is frequently used in response to people who verbally challenge or try to observe/record police at protests.”

While other anti-protesting proposals in Washington state and Iowa focus on protesters blocking transit routes, a bill that was floated in Michigan appeared to target labor unions. The legislation, which was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives before being set aside by the state Senate last month, would have enabled the state to fine individual picketers $1,000 per day of picketing and would place a $10,000 daily penalty on a union presiding over such a protest. A companion bill would have made it easier for employers to replace striking workers.

Although it’s unclear whether Michigan Republicans will reintroduce the legislation, Democrats are not optimistic. “I think they absolutely will revive it,” Democratic state Rep. Leslie Love told The Intercept.

In Washington, a state where Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, there is little chance that the plan to label protestors as “economic terrorists” will advance. Prospects are better for the anti-protesting bills in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota, all of which have Republican-dominated legislatures.

In the case of Minnesota, Kushner says the bills in question are seen as a “serious cause of concern,” and he characterized the state’s new legislation as being purely political.

“I think that the motivations for the Republican legislators proposing bills to penalize protests are to cater to the general public hostility towards Black Lives Matter in the overwhelmingly white suburban and rural districts they represent,” said Kushner in an email. “The goal is to criminalize protesting to a greater degree and thereby discourage public dissent.”

Correction: Jan. 19, 2017

An earlier version of this article referred to Philando Castile as “unarmed.” In fact, Castile told the officer who shot him that he was armed and had a license to carry the weapon.

Top photo: Police form a line across the road as demonstrators shut down the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles a day after President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory, Nov. 9, 2016.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Contact the author:

This is the job of law enforcement. All a person needs to do is to call their local police department or sheriff’s office. That’s it, folks. There is absolutely no reason to try to run someone over. If it was your family member at risk of being run over, I’ll be you would be carrying to protect your loved one.

Let’s be honest for a moment, these haven’t been “peaceful” protests have they? What MLK did was peaceful, they didn’t block roads any longer than needed to get to where they were going, they didn’t smash windows and loot, they didn’t riot… sorry, but changing the definition of the word does not change reality, these were criminal acts.

Social media at least enables peaceful mass protests that don’t block traffic especially if it involves direct action such as petitions, flooding the phone lines, nationwide economic boycotts, mass email campaigns and online letter writing campaigns, as well as alternative govt websites. There are many other ways for protests to have big effects and change the dynamic. The peaceful resistance will find ways through these roadblocks. And outdoor protests can find other places to protest where civil disobedience can be practiced without traffic getting blocked.

Wtf so Republicans are cool with no gun laws, claiming ‘we have the right to bear arms’ as written in the Bill of Rights. But they seek to restrict our freedom of speech and protest, even though this is ALSO written in the Bill of Rights? Fucking hypocrites

You missed something, Republicans are not against peaceful protests. Rather they are against rioting, looting, vandalism, blocking roads.. those are already categorized as criminal behavior. What’s going on is the liberals are trying once again to change definitions of words to suit their needs. In the past it was called propaganda, a form of lying.

I’m very liberal about many things, but if you’re gonna stand in the way of traffic, SCREW YOU. You’re interfering with people’s right to travel uninhibitedly. You’re just as likely to infringe upon the free travel of people who share your views even.

The scary thing is if you believe this propaganda. Rioting, looting, vandalizing, and blocking roads have been criminal acts for decades, and doing so is NOT a form of “peaceful protesting”. The Republicans are NOT trying to stop freedom of speech or assembly, rather they want liberal Democrats to follow the rules. I know it’s a tough concept for these youngsters who have never been punished or told no in their lives, but it’s time they face reality and stop living in a fantasy world.

CAUTION: May be offensive. Any use of all caps is not yelling. If this makes you uncomfortable, you’re welcome.
WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICANS…………………….We are a simple-minded culture. Our democracy is still young and like babies we sleep a lot. We’re distracted by TOYS and a good show! Jobs, housing, healthcare, workers rights, (directly connected the latter three), and education, needed for continuing growth and participation in this 21st century, is what WE THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT. Meanwhile, the well orchestrated distractions have infiltrated our short attention span. We’re crying about our guns. WHY??? It’s easy, any idiot can purchase one. One baby gets feed regularly while watching other babies crying from “miss meal cramps” so the well fed baby is on guard, ready to fight, even use his gun holding tightly to his limited bowl of mush. We’re taught to fear each other for any and all differences. We even have names for them. They’re every name possible to designate favor but mostly disdain for an individual group of humans like, “Gingers”, “Beaners”, “Wops”, “Micks”, “Gooks”, “Charlie”, “Dago”, “Eskimos”, “Heb”, “Honky”, Cracker”, “Towelheads”, and so many, many, more including the infamous, “Niggers”. All hated for one reason or another but we’re sure they want to take from us what it is we think we have that is so desirable. That invisible enemy who is coming to take all the things you’re ENTITLED to is just one of those hungry babies trying to get fed too. Beyond our segregated child gate, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS BEING SHIT ON! ! ! TIME TO GROW THE FUCK UP AMERICANS………….You’re no better than me and I’m not better than you. That won’t matter at all however if we allow these Ayn Rand Oligarchs to ERASE THE VERY FIBER OF THIS FRAGILE DEMOCRACY.

those who are taking part are technically committing crimes when they refuse to leave the area under a “lawful order” of the police. They should expect to be arrested for these crimes, and the police are authorized to use reasonable amounts of force to effect those arrests.

Freeway protests are the absolute worst development in social justice tactics. Protesting on freeways is liable to get people killed regardless of whether it’s intentional or not and it’s not just the protesters at risk. Those big semi trucks can’t stop on a dime. All it takes is one driver to take their eye off the road for a brief moment while going freeway speeds to cause a multi-vehicle accident and the situation can compound itself further from there. Protesters shouldn’t be thinking that their lives are safe because they shouldn’t get run over for protesting, that’s not going to stop an accident. If they get killed, they’ll never be able to work on any change towards the issue that’s important to them and that only helps the opposition. What’s next, protesting on a NASCAR track? Use your brains, people.

My my my, what a load of fear mongering. If you actually READ the bills that are presented, they’re regarding protests hindering the flow of traffic on highways. If anyone takes two minutes, they’ll find that they’re strengthening the laws that already exist about pedestrians on roadways.

As a Washington resident, I need to correct your claim that Democrats control both houses of the state legislature. They control the state House(and the governorship), but Republicans have a 1-seat majority in the state Senate. This situation still makes it unlikely that an anti-protest bill would pass.

Our Declaration of Independence gives us the right to revolt. You kill a peaceful demonstrators exercising their right to protest, and I will come after you. I’m an old man and I have nothing to lose. “There will be blood.”

Pretty idiotic article if I were to have to rate it by content and honesty. The author is trying to make the conclusion fit a few words. My second grade students can do the same thing and come up with 32 different stories. You need to get over the political loss, and start acting like an adult. Please try more to be part of the solution rather than part of a perceived problem. Grow up!!!

I’m face palming right now. His “second grade students” know that they are “exclamation points” at the end of his sentence, not “explanation points”. Perhaps you should be sitting in his classroom taking notes? When attempting to make others look foolish, be sure not to look foolish yourself.

So just how would this affect demonstrations in front of Planned Parenthood facilities if the demonstrators are prevented from trespassing on the property of the PP office, so the demonstration spills over onto the street??? Would these laws be enforced against those demonstrators also???

It is not a “peaceful” demonstration when it impedes the ability of WORKING Americans to get to work or to travel freely…it is also NOT a peaceful demonstration when there is property damage…the thought that we can just “do whatever we want” is nonsense…you can no more impede traffic than you can yell fire in a crowded theater…

Omg-I am so tired of that argument-that those who protest for basic civil and human rights of others, are not workers or American. Grow up and get smart. It is unconstitutional (under free speech) to yell fire in a crowded theater-or say anything that would directly harm others in clear ways. it is perfectly legal and wholly constitutional to assemble peacefully : What is the right to peaceably assemble?
[1] The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Shut up.

Every right is subject to limitations. Apply your logic to the one right after the first amendment and think about how much infringement there is on that one! Peaceful protests do not get to impede citizens who need to go to work to earn money.

Legal to run down demonstrators, reclassify as felony, as economic terrorism???! Ameticas future under billionaire class domination unless,

….we are prepared to take the next step, to go from demonstration to resistance, to risk imprisonment, risk death by vehicle, to resist by #generalstrike to resist as in direct boycott #DIVEST

It is not my intent to diminish what was accomplished this past Saturday in the following but simply to point the necessity of direct action because unless we impact the flow of wealth created by our labor to billionaire class personal vaults, they don’t give a shite about what happens on the weekend.

Under current realities like billionaire class media domination and so much more, in the end Saturday demonstration is just a feel good exercise that makes the news only by force of numbers but is gone from the news cycle and the minds of too many by monday. Are you prepared to #RESIST

I support all of these laws. Blocking traffic is not a legitimate form of protest and it is not your right. You are putting people lives in danger, preventing emergency services from promptly responding to calls, and costing hardworking Americans money, especially those who drive for a living. Destroying property is also not a legitimate form of protest. You do not have the right to bust out store windows, burn cars, or jump up and down on vehicles. No one is stepping on your right to protest, but you need to learn the difference between protesting and rioting.

It would be very helpful to have the designation # and name of the specific bills that are being introduced to criminalize peaceful protest – then we can actually take some action by calling and writing our representatives putting pressure on them directly – it’s called civil action. Thank you for your article.

Blocking traffic for months on end so people can’t go about their business is not peaceful protesting. I missed the part of the Constitution where it stated it is legal to block roads and highways as you see fit.

A peaceful protest would occur on the side of traffic, not holding people hostage by preventing them from going anywhere.

Don’t just like and comment and occasionally share. Get your guide here and use it to contact YOUR elected representatives. If they are not responsive, the start a Recall Petition to Recall them and elect someone with a few grains of common sense. You can’t stop the Liars Liar if he is still there. Do something
NOWhttps://www.indivisibleguide.com/

@Carlito234 Here you go, now you can go ahead and read some of the Leftist deception for yourself. The demonizing Republicans in action in North Dakota wanting to take away peoples 1st Amendment rights by the way of “accidentially” killing them with a motor vehicle. Oh no, they are not the bad guys, not at all!!

Peaceful protest is a sacred American right, protected by the Constitution. But blocking highways is NOT a right at all. There is no law anywhere that protects or defends an alleged “right” to impede the free passage of others who are not part of the protest.

Intentionally running over such a protestor would indeed be attempted murder. But if a motorist failed to see them, and accidentally collided with some of them, EVERY member of the blockading group should be held personally liable for the damage done.

Even if allowed only by accident, you’re still saying that someone’s right to drive is more important than someone’s right to protest. Which one is expressed by the Constitution? Between obstructing freedom of speech and obstructing traffic, the former is far more important. I wouldn’t be surprised if these same Republican Congressmen sought to repeal these measures they have proposed when Democrats surge back into power.

The right to Protest is not specifically spelled out in the 1st Amendment. Peaceful Assembly is but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. So, you don’t get to march in circles on my front lawn, march through downtown at 2 AM if the City prohibits it, march on the highway if the State Prohibits it, etc etc. That’s the law and it ensures that there are consequences from not following said laws.

These proposed laws are common sense. It’s not my fault if I run you over at 2 AM on I95 because I had no reason to believe that you and your moronic buddies would be around the bend as I drove 70 MPH.

No one is saying that someone’s right to drive is more important than someone’s right to protest. Both driving and protesting are action verbs that carry the same merit, people can (and do) both legally drive and protest all they want within the rules of law. What people cannot do, and what people do not have more of a right to do, is break the laws that govern driving or peaceful protesting. It doesn’t matter if a motorist accidentally hits a protestor obstructing traffic, or an everyday pedestrian crossing the street, involuntary vehicular manslaughter is the same for both. No one is saying you cant protest, or that peacefully protesting within the law will automatically subject you to arrest, violence, or death, no one has ever said that. What protesters and the public seem to need a reminder of, is the already existing laws that govern a citizens right to protest. You cannot protest on private property without permission, and you cannot obstruct traffic, or public entrances and exits. None of these bills would criminalize anything that wasn’t already subject to arrest.

More Leftist deception! Where does it end!!! This is another LIE from the Intercept, so-called ‘journalists’, directly misleading its readers by demonizing “republicans” and making it SEEM as if they’re the “bad guyz”. No one is outlawing “peaceful protests” LEAST OF ALL Conservatives who are the protectors of our Constitution.

Destroying public or personal property is NOT peaceful protest. Blocking the highway and interfering with people’s lives and livelihood is not peaceful protest. People are able to get a permit to protest, which are only allowed to be in certain area. The Intercept has a very deceptive tone!

Sorry, but yes, if you’re walking on the highway “peacefully protesting”, you can expect you might get killed. The alternative that was threatening to happen was to criminalize motorists who might accidentally injure these people who put themselves in a dangerous situation. No one is saying people can’t gather and protest, but walking onto a 5 lane highway is asking for trouble. This doesn’t even include the potential loss of income, jobs, risk to public health, impediment of emergency services, etc.

There are other forms of power that can be abused- and who can forget how Obama’s IRS destroyed the Tea party- that was a gross abuse of power, and perhaps, more brutal.

Or the way the Dems at large abused the DHS tipline, and ‘community policing’ for fun and political profit.

If we add up the sum total of damage to the Constitution, I would say what these guys above are doing is “America as usual” but what Obama did was walk us all to the gallows, over there on the edge of the slippery slope.

1) butthurt DemoRats who sold and slaved the party to the neo-cons, or otherwise cowered in silence and allowed the surveillance state to sink its blackmailing claws into everyone-that’s a Democrat conception- mother knows best.

2) anyone who argues with part line DemoRats ( you know, those people who screwed the other Democrats); and

3) anyone who argues with SJW’s, zionist chatbots, and MultiAlphabeticus Agencius trolls, and labors under the delusion that America would have been better under Clinton.

Meantime- sure, you could say it was an ‘inside job’ or whatever- but isn’t all this cloak and dagger conflation, and internet funded by Soros trolling, and the misuse of tiplines to abuse the process on political enemies that the Dems led these last decades?

That’s the reality now. And they should admit it, make concessions, and correct their national party character flaws.

I mean- have you seen how heavily censored speech is on the internet? Whole battalions of trolls, paid for to suppress everyone, courtesy of the secret courts, secret laws, and privileged communities of certain people.

This is another LIE from Spencer Woodman and the Leftist media, directly misleading its readers by demonizing “republicans” and making it SEEM as if they’re the “bad guyz”. You can’t outlaw peaceful protests, its anti-Constitutional. Most conservatives are the FIRST to protect the Constitution. Leftists… not so much.

What you describe as “a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally” in North Dakota would enact in ND the very same policy that has been law for a long time in California. If a driver hits a pedestrian and it’s not the driver’s fault and the driver stops and cooperates with police, then the driver gets to go home with no charges. It’s probably law in several other states because it makes a lot of sense.

The law doesn’t legalize vehicular manslaughter. If you run over a protester intentionally you can still be charged. What the law DOES is redefine liability. Since a protestor is in the road intentionally, the new law designates them as “at fault” in a pedestrian/vehicle accident.

essentially it takes away the ability of a protestor right to sue a motorist if he jumps in front of his vehicle and gets run over.

the freedom of movement is a fundamental, inalienable, constitutional right as ruled by circuit and supreme courts in the 19th century. protesters cannot infringe upon the right to the freedom of movement, just like one cannot infringe upon the right of private property with their own freedom of movement. rights are only rights when not infringing upon another’s.

i do NOT agree with the suppression of the rights to freely assemble and protest, but i also do not agree with the suppression of any inalienable right by another exercising theirs. perhaps the bill’s suggested penalties are harsh and that should be debated.

Blocking highways and assaulting drivers (which the left has done) is not peaceful protest. Funny how now that the king of SJWish, Obama, is out of power, the left LOVES free speech (even though assaulting the police is not free speech).

Driving is not a right, as nearly every court in the US has stated and ruled accordingly. It is a priviledge, not a right. However, peaceful protest IS a riht, guarenteed under the constitution. I seriously doubt that any of those proposed bills would pass a USSC hearing regarding their unconstitutionality.

Yes, but even constitutional rights can be curbed for the sake of public safety and the public good. If you don’t agree, try saying bomb on an airplane and say you had the constitutional right to do so.

Protect the 2nd Amendment and throw out the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No we Can’t have a bill like this, its only gona bring more problems an they should let Trump be president an give it 2years an see if has made some changes that can fix America’s problems P.S people putting cars on fire an riotting are making America not a better place be more civil

for safety reasons, it is illegal to block a freeway. for safety reasons, it is illegal to block a city street, without a permit from the relevant authority’s. in fact, “civil disobedience”, by definition, is not protected from legal sanction, as the “DISOBEDIENCE” part is disobeying laws. at the least, civil disobedience causes a disturbance of order. at the worst, people die…. shutting down freeways with protest is a clear danger to the protesters, the drivers, and by immobilizing first responders, a danger to the innocent as has been sadly documented as ambulances immobilized by thugs lost patients.
as far as I’m concerned, anyone is free to chain yourself to the courtroom door, block streets, dance on freeways, practice all the contempt for common sense civil laws enacted to promote safety, ease of access, or access for first responders… feel free to commit all the civil disobedience you wish. just don’t call it “peaceable assembly”, and don’t complain about all the fines jail time, lawsuits, liability you incur on yourself, as that is the consequence you accept when you decide to practice civil disobedience (sic. violate the law).
so… for all you whiny protestors, I say, man up, or stay in your safe place with your teddy bears, and coloring books. put on your big boy pants, and accept the consequence you knew about when you decided to risk your life, and the lives of others, by trespassing on a freeway.

So the people walking into the middle of a freeway and standing up to the abusive police are the snowflakes here? The weak ones? Yeah asshole, thats you. The guy who rolls over and easily gives up his rights so he can keep clutching his teddy is the real weak one.

It’s a 4,000+ pound weapon vs a human – no contest – and these protesters aren’t jumping out in front of your cars like insurance scam artists.

Trial attorneys will eat yours and anyone else’s lunch in a courtroom with a jury for driving into a crowd or hitting a pedestrian, who always has the right of way, regardless of what law they pass, guaranteed baby.

And what kind of big boy pants are you wearing that while sitting comfortably inside the safe-space of your car you are threatened enough by people in tennis shoes milling about that you think it’s ok to run one over. What kind of child are you.

” inside the safe-space of your car you are threatened enough by people in tennis shoes”

Tell that to people that have been physically dragged out of their vehicles and assaulted, asshole. As a woman, do I not have the right to my own safety? No boy pants here at all, just a fear for my own life because I’ve seen what can happen. Just because some idiots want to block the freeway, do I now deserve to be put in a compromised position? Fuck you.

So it’s alright to stop traffic by creating checkpoints and demanding proof that a person lives within the protest area and pointing high powered weapons at law enforcement. But trying to stop bulldozers from coming into your community and destroying your home isn’t.

This is written in a way that makes the situation look worse than it is. Do people have to right to assemble peacefully and speak their mind? Yes. Do people have the right to stand on a freeway, put their lives in danger, potentially put other people’s lives in danger, cause a potential slowdown of traffic which in turn can possibly lead to other people not being able to get to work, goods to be shipped or any other number of possibilities which can potentially cause issues much larger than just the peaceful protests? No.

Depending on how protestors choose to protest, it can lead to larger problems. Regardless of who started it, at least a small handful of protests somehow ended in riots and looting. That part is not OK.

So yes, people absolutely have to right to speak their mind and be heard. But if it somehow has the potential to get out of control one way or another, then at least some of those acts should be penalized.

“In North Dakota,Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally.”

“In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway.”

“Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.”

“Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions.”

“…in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests.”

Yes, protests can be disruptive, but how can any legislator in any state be so naive as to propose legislation that would result in the high costs of lengthy trials that would almost certainly end up before the SCOTUS?
It’s difficult to imagine that the SCOTUS would find these laws constitutional, and their only effect might well be to delay protests until the high court issued its ruling.
What are the chances any of these proposals would survive scrutiny by the SCOTUS?
Are legislators in each of these states willing to have taxpayers foot the bill for the lengthy litigation that would ensue?

Additionally, North Dakota “…Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists ‘punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,’ according to the Bismarck Tribune. ‘If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue,’ said Kempenich. ‘Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of their right to drive down the road.’”
That’s a curious – and nebulous – argument, since North Dakota considers driving a privilege and not a right.
How did voters in North Dakota elect someone who is so uninformed of its laws, rights, and privileges?

Lastly, I’m curious: is “…Jordan S. Kushner, a Minneapolis civil rights attorney…” related in any way to the Jared Kushner who is Trump’s son-in-law?

I know people are getting fed up with SJWs, but, protests are not necessarily connected to SJWs. Protests are a form of free speech of the public to voice against something they disagree with that the government is doing. Notice, all of a sudden when the government is mostly government controlled, they want to silence protesters? It’s because they know they plan to do a lot of things that large numbers of people will not agree with, but they want to do it anyway. This is supposed to be a free government, for the people, and they are instead using it for selfish reasons.

It’s not like protesters like blocking people on the streets. It’s just the most peaceful way they can make national news to get their voices heard. Because if they didn’t, their voices would go completely ignored, and that defeats the purpose of the protest.

If the protest is loud enough, that means there are a lot of angry people, and perhaps the government should rethink their decisions instead of just trying to silence and kill the freedom of speech. We the people do not have to be obedient nor are we brainwashed. We are free thinking people; if we vote for you, it means we trust you will protect us, and if we protest against you, it means we disagree with you and you should listen.

If these types of laws get pushed through, you will be seeing a lot more violent and destructive riots, because you’ll have backed people into a corner and taken away their voice, and took away their freedoms in what is supposed to be a democracy.

One of the first steps to becoming an authoritarian nation is taking away the peaceful voices of the people. Keep that in mind.

Erin-
“One of the first steps to becoming an authoritarian nation is taking away the peaceful voices of the people”

I think they did that with the drug war, criminalizing pot; and with the feminist’s war on consensual sex- but no one noticed that this is what it was, because ‘first the came for the lazy pothead. Than they came for the pervert. Then they came for….you, the protester.

Maybe it’s time to do the hard ugly work and organize the prisoners, and then open the prisons. Imagine the strength of protest that the men who are caught in the penal system could muster if they were liberated? Imagine the power of that potential voice added to all of your protests.

But that would fly in the face of the 40 years of prison building, and the ritual defamation, and criminalization of men in America-because they are men-while privileging every butthurt Twitter SJW, wouldn’t it?

I mean, who wants a bunch of “violent drug addicts and rapists” beside you at a protest, right?

The bad guys win every time you whack their straw men with a the stick thy handed to you.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense.”

UNINTENTIONALLY……. I don’t know many countries who don’t have that rule. We even have that here in Denmark….

We go into the future eyes wide open, although the bulk of citizens of the world. Observer rather than feel a participant because its maddening government action like this that makes us depressed and not productive in our lives. When the authoriy we allow pretains to gain superiority over our group-distress. Demonstrating & peaceful protest go hand in hand with what we understand as liberty within a 1st world nation. It’s a terrible inditment on our societies when ‘they’ affirm a collection of people not given permission to say/do/walk this or that way is a criminal act. Uk_naziland makes demo’s apply for demonstartion days & stipulate the route. They as in the uk government have been semi-recently trying to advocate that these demo’s should fund the (we already do through taxes) police attendance & helicopter over-watch state maintained observers. A tyrannical society is becoming more easily visible with each step change towards total control & imbedded chip implants to track everyone! The new world order is a demonic entity who treats workers & citizens as cattle.

If you and the dozen people you’re with, need to shut down freeways and harangue innocent motorists in order to get an audience, it either means that you’re a shitty person, or supporting a shitty issue.

At first glance, my comment will seem repulsive, and make little sense but later it might.

Did it ever occur to you that the peace and justice movement is subverted at birth by a gendered narrative, and that, mostly promulgated by white women of your mothers generation, and the one before it? And some today in the form of privileged narrative allied with fanatical religions (JewishChristianity)- and that narrative was soundly defeated in the last election, where revenge was exacted on these privileged white women and their cohort of colored others, via the election of a privileged white man- that whiteness itself was the primary election issue, and everyone lost?

And who really benefits fro all that disarray- have you ever seen who sits at the top of the ‘ we are minorities!’ pyramid scheme?

Then, I would suggest that even your call to peacefully march is nearly a complete waste of resources, because there are bigger fish to fry, chiefly eliminating that SJW rhetoric, and replacing it with a dialogue about actual, blue collar equality that drops the boardrooms an the billionaires factored into the equationfor awhile- and dropping the ‘ women earn 77 cents to the dollar’ b.s. that could be replaced with a dialogue of inclusive equality that doesn’t begin and end at the vahjayjay?

So, for instance- did you ever look at where the surveillance state of secret laws, and secret courts, and secret surveillance, and secret thisNthat was born? It was actually birthed in the family courts, and CPS, and hiding the identities of rape accusers in an era of legal, free, and low cost abortion, and the pill that many women continue to selectively use?

That all those ‘advancements for women’ actually set them-and the nation they birthed- set them back, as well as set back the clock of Constitutional due process that led us here- that they were duped by internationalist agendas that stole a couple generations of kids and raised them to endless war?

Because the only other correllary to all the extra special entitlements of these secret proceedings were RICO trials, and the absurd leaps that our government took to hide identities of those who witnessed against the mob bosses. It is probable that those RICO trials provided a great example of test cases wherein judicial secrecy was what the fed was really trying out- and all that because badmenz.

And that these women and all of those ‘social justice/women and children’s’ special programs birthed in those era’s have become their own version of political strongarm rackets that benefit only those entitled by them?

Fix the prisons, bring fathers back into the parenting cycle and reform secrecy at all levels, because it only protects women who seek entitlement, at the expense of equality. Because as we saw with RICO, we also see with VAWA, and all of the other anti-father, anti-male legislation that came afterwards. It all starts at the birth of child into an unequal parenting system.

And really- look at what those women ’empowered’ in these era’s built- it’s the well armed robo-warrior cop there in front of you at the protest, armed with all the toys and tools that it takes to keep the ‘badmenz’ locked up, and of course, he’s there to “protect the children,” but from what, exactly?

From hearing the name of a rape accuser in a newspaper? From hearing the scary fact that the FBI et ass creates terrorists, and runs gun, and child porn sites? Or that the DEA is virtually inseparable from the CIA and that indeed our government is the biggest drug dealer in the known world (yup Gary Webb was right)?

All of this and more springs right out of any secret family court hearing, and any other hidden “who knows what really happened but side with the woman/mother anyways'” ruling, and ensures generation after generation of more and more compliant babies who wake up to the cold hard facts of totalitarianism based on boogiemen anxiety

But don’t ask robo-cop there- it was these exact privileged, ’empowered’ women who birthed him to replace fathers in the home- all of their literature called for exactly that.

So, maybe a call for organizing men because they are men is in order, cuz we see the house that Jill built is in complete disarray.

What father in his right mind would allow it, much less secret trials, secret laws, and secret rulings that only keep men at bey,much against the interests of children who could be raised without that one opinion per household total compliance model, enforced by Ubermen, and guys with guns?

I’m a bit wary of blaming it all on anti-male, but then I’m not American and grew up in Africa in very anti-women societies so I am a bit knee-jerk in protecting myself, but otherwise… everything you said here made sense.

Yes, I do acknowledge that women’s issues are world wide and very real. I have had many African friends over the years, an the situation varies across cultures (women’s issues in Ghana are not the same as in S Africa, etc.).

But the vast majority of the problem is the issue of ‘men’s rights’ which are really human rights. While young privileged females wee indoctrinated into these identity politics and HRC voter base politics, with rape memes here in America, and college aged females are taught that they bear no responsibility or sexual agency- men in American prisons, and men in the Congo were actually being raped to death by the millions, yet none could be bothered to talk about it:

So, the secret family courts here are the seed that grew this vast secret surveillance tree. Like I said above- all feminist literature f the earlier era’s wrote the script of totalitarian control.

The problem here, in America and the west in general is one of privileged narrative in our propaganda stream that cause the appearance that local issues are somehow world issues and vice versa-they are not. It’s the same MSM/bankster problem in a different form.

Back in the 1990’s the populist feminist adopted an “act locally think globally” mantra, and while it benefited some women it destroyed opportunities for others by criminalizing essentially, males here who have no opportunities, no organized movements, and and who were deliberately disadvantaged with SJW rhetoric.

So today, with the ever expanding wars, and the constant hunt for new boogiemen that this mindset has created, there exists here in America a class of men-and the women they are related to- who have been systematically destroyed, which means their children have also been disadvantaged.

So, part of the backlash is the crass Donald Trump becoming the symbolic victory of the one class of men in America who have absolutely no seat at the table in the media, or politics of their era- the exact class of men that the HRC crowd demonized as ‘angry white men,’ in order to look better-as if they are something more and better than white interlopers themselves in the identity dialectic and the hierarchy of human suffering.

In America, all of its history indicates that the greatest fear has always been that black men and white men would join forces and the Hilllary/identity politics crowd exploited that masterfully. And the seeds of the “ownership” of children were sown in all of our early laws about parental rights-and again, the Hillary crowd exploited that in the family courts.

So the situation of women’s rights moved forward here, while father’s right’s-and all men and their children are in the exact legal limbo that slave masters and legislators wrote into law in 1623, and in 1746 and so on-that children must be purchased from the master in order for a father to be a parent.

So the big secret of family courts is no secret they exist now as they did back in the 17th century, where men of wealth and power can buy their kids, and men of no wealth or power have n expectation of anything other than petty wage slavery.

In other words, while the masters have been replaced by banks ad corporations, and the church power has been replaced by mainstream media trolls and SJW ‘morality’ the situation is still that men in general are denied access to the primary political mechanism of parenting.

And only now- in the last couple of years- has male birth control on a par with ‘the pill’ that women had in the 1960’s has been developed. This is not a coincidence-it is by systemic design and institutional abuse.

I spoke plainly, clearly, and at length-no code whatsoever (although I get it- you brainwashed bankster funded faux-leftists have stalled progress for all since the 1980’s), and I get hasbara response.

I am outing you ahead of time as a parasitic mole on democracies ass. In conversational terms, you are likely one of the internet versions of the police conceived “black bloc’s” that ruin demonstrations and peaceful protest with derailment.

is this what you do when you are not performing hasbara theater? Why oh why do words scare your type so? Because scratching your thin hide with just a nick reveals a lack of depth, or merit?

Where would any thinking person get the idea that I am as you suggest, other than your relatively lowbrow, ad-hom, blase’ quips?

Mebbe learn to read, don, because certainly, Trump will build the prisons, don. And certainly Trump will increase surveillance and domestic terror of activists, don. And certainly he will increase Black Block type activity to derail legitimate protest, don. Nd secret courts, of course- but you don’t come here for solutions do ya don?

don- do you suffer an impotent inability to formulate alternatives to the DemoRats v Republicanards paradigms the banksters, AIPAC, and .mil contracting hand you every four years?

Anything of substance to offer?

I didn’t vote in this election, after what your lily-white goddesses Wasserman-Scheitz and her handler Hillary pulled on Bernie. My last vote of record was for Obama- and even then I brought a non-citizen with me, and put her fingerprint on the ballot. And I vote in other ways-with my feet, exploring alternatives to what America has become as the duopoly of fascists fight for the last scrap of military police state crumbs.

Hot gas? Certainly nothing on your end indicates anything other than Depends-probably several per day.

… you do realize that you misread my original post …and that, that easy observation and your obtuse writing style stopped me from bothering to read much else of yours except skim you rabidly chasing your own tail ?

Before I address your post- I would like you to note that “In the Heart of the Beast” is a prison novel written in the 1960’s that discusses how race is deconstructed and reconstructed in prisons-and because it was written by a white man, it is nearly forbidden literature today. And also note that it has 12 chapters (speaking of codes):

But I’m sure I read your post correctly the first time. And I suggested that what I had in reply isn’t something that will make sense immediately, but find irony in the fact that a woman from s. Afric understood, whereas you find it obtuse.

And I addressed your observations in my response. To whit:

‘Marching isn’t the answer; organizing those who have been marginalized by the new establishment IS the answer(and that new establishment-as we see in the marches today-is comprised primarily of women who have leisure time, marching in groups allied with mystery donor’s, and international NGO’s, and unfettered access to the primary tool of organizing which is the communication channels).’

Obtuse? In reply, I infer that your writing style is vague, and attempting candid, but not necessarily succeeding at it, in this case.

I could easily-and perhaps foolishly-assume that some of what you say and some of what I say are actually on the same page: anti-fascism seems to be a common concern, for instance, as is the dumbing down of triple A activists to accept the false dichotomies of socialism-v-fascism; and to “embrace ” racism as a necessary tool to power, for example.

But you came back with something something #13 and ‘code’ which you defined weakly, and didn’t use any concrete examples of ‘the code.’

So in your example/link of the criminalization of African American men, I am not certain that you yourself haven’t coded a message, and that, a racist one- because I am not coding anything, and I am pointing out that men of all colors are criminalized, virtually from birth.

That the entire history of American law has been directed at dividing and then exploiting the scales of justice that never favor men of ANY color as primary ‘possessors’ or teachers of the lives and futures of children.

But you did manage to squeeze the word shit in quite a bit, and also masturbation, juxtaposed against the inference that I am a Trump speech writer; and now manage to use ‘that, that’ together just above^

So,no, no, and no- and maybe a bit of yes on the wider issue- and that issue primarily is that men of all colors have been divided-and the existing establishment that is largely comprised of white females want’s it that way that men’s rights should stay in 1643.

And the wider issue, which is just below the surface- is how one group; one class; one ethnic and racial identity has exploited black men, demonized them as rapists, and used them against white men alternatively as counter-mates; and that is white women and “their children”, who are the front guard of the establishment today.

So-while Eldridge Cleaver for example, wrote about how he had great disrespect for white women, as he had been cast as a rapist- today, this same academic class casts white men as wife beaters and pedophiles, and portray them as the privileged straw man-a hollow effigy, considering the prisons themselves are the real issue-as well as the identity of the class of people whose fears and anxieties put men in there.
And thankfully, this election kicked their asses, and hopefully, exposes their children to the harms that ‘others’ children endure, so that another kind of equality can emerge.

So- one of the ‘coded’ dialogues we see today is this inability to discuss prison as anything other than a black man’s experience, whereas no discussion is allowed about prison as a racializing caste and class experience for men in general, or as a concept and contrivance of these same coders themselves.

There is nothing about these “protests” that is peaceful. The truck in their picture didn’t set itself on fire, I’m sure. I have witnessed countless videos of these “protesters” delaying or halting ambulances and fire trucks, damaging vehicles and attacking drivers. They aren’t fighting for anyone’s rights. They’re selfish, angsty, and childish; seeking attention and validation through violence. They’re bullies. And those who support them are their enablers in this bullying. Worse still, their actions imperil others, through their thoughtless cruelty. I hope these bills pass, and I hope that they lead to even harsher bills; it’s time to restore some order to The State.

The excellent documentary ’13th’ on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741 sheds light on how those who wish to rise in power often use ‘code’ to mask their demagoguery that voters pick up on out of unfounded fears.
Recent protests by triple-A (African American Activists) are being ‘coded’ in these pushes to erode freedoms. But these restrictions will affect us all and could be legally interpreted to further impinge our rights in ways we can’t yet foresee.

Better to ask why people are protesting and address the Fascism that is causing it.
It’s plain that those elected to serve the public and listen to their grievances, & tackle these issues, solution is to punish any dissent to entrenched power.

Yes blocking roads deprives commerce, access to timely fire & emergency response, etc. but these protest instances are minute and can be addressed in other ways.

The way things are going you may soon find yourself walking in one of these peaceful protests.

Americans seem to forget that we cannot exercise our freedom and liberty under the Constitution while preventing others from enjoying their freedom and liberty under the Constitution. There is a proper place and time for everything. Peaceful protests would not be interfered with if they took place on a football field (no game in progress), in a stadium or other large open space. When protesters deny others the right to freely move about they are infringing on the rights of those people to do as they please. Also, by forcing people to stop their lives because of a protest those people are being forced to be accomplices to the protest, against their will. Protests are a valid process for getting attention to the cause for the protest. They have to be done according to the rules of the community in which the protest is to take place. If those rules are not followed, protesters have broken the law and are subject to being penalized therefore. There is no need for jail time or exorbitant fines. By breaking up the protests police will have taken the air out of their cause. That will be penalty enough. Police need to keep their ears to the ground and be on hand when the protest starts to form up. If it is evident to them that the protesters will violate local ordinances/rules that is the time for breaking up the assemblage and making them move on. Letting the entire group form up before taking action increases the need for forceful action and resources to carry it out. Politicians and people need to keep their heads about themselves and pursue the sensible way to accomplish what they want done. There are too many laws now that most don’t know exist. What good is another law that will not get enforced except when doing so creates a politically advantageous situation for the broken media to publicize.

Imagine if Martin Luther King decided to follow the rules established by this flawed and easily corrupted system. Imagine women listened obediently and never fought for their rights. Imagine the LGBT community gave up the fight for equal treatment. The system is flawed and we owe no loyalty to such a beast. Peaceful opposition is what the regular hard working American has left. Being a regular citizen in today’s society, and still attempting to protect the government, goes to show how indoctrinated a lot of people have become. For the sake of convienece you would let the government walk all over you. Free yourself. Open your mind and your heart. Peace and blessings.

Blocking traffic is an attack upon people who wish to use the road by people who do not own the road. This is not peaceful. Legalizing their physical removal by any means necessary is the correct course of action. Furthermore, public roads should be transferred to private ownership because the only solution to the problem of the commons is to eliminate the commons.

Actually, the State Government owns the Interstate and the State Government owns the Highways, not BLM, or any others who wish to block in innocent people, attack and damage vehicles and obstruct/delay emergency vehicles (all of which -HAS- happened) so I hope this legislation passes and leads to even tougher sanctions. There is nothing “Non violent” about these protests and I can find hours of videos that prove the point.

When laws are voted that seek to quell nonviolent protest abd first amendment rights, our most basic principles of democracy are at risk and indicate a total failure of our institutions to promote dialogue and peaceful resolution if conflicts and indicate an unwillingness to even engage in reasoned public debate. Sad, sad day when lawmakers are willing to go down THAT path. The USA is already #1, by far, in prison population and gun violence. These laws will only make the USA ever more like the totalitarian regimes these same lawmakers so strongly criticize. Shame on them!

The U.S is not even CLOSE to #1 in gun violence, and these protests are not non-violent. That truck in the picture didn’t burn itself. Quite frankly, shame on the protesters who made this step necessary.

That’s a damned far cry from “criminalize peaceful protest.” That isn’t a political issue, it’s a public safety issue, and it also protests those too freakin’ stupid to remember their mommy telling them not to play in the middle of the street. The ND bill, despite the delusional hysteria, does not “allow” people to run down protesters, it protects them from prosecution for ACCIDENTAL contact when a pedestrian is somewhere they’re legally not supposed to be. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer not to be sued by some moron’s family because he jumps in front of my car on I-35 carrying a sign.

It does not help your cause to print hysterical propaganda like this garbage.

Good for these republicans what about the mothers in labor or the ambulance in Portland that had to wait because of these protests. I feel the headlines to this piece are gross. These recent protests have not been peaceful you want to see peaceful look at MLK or Ghandi, Nelson Mandela or Jesus. People should be ran over if they are on a hwy or interstate and they should be fined or thrown in jail for breaking windows or defacing public property oh wait there are laws against that already. You communist liberal hippies need to grow up.

MLK refused to condemn riots because “a riot is the language of the unheard.”
Mandela was not peaceful. He knew that sometimes it was not an option. Not sure where you heard him a nonviolent protestor, but it ain’t true.
For Jesus, read this http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-12.htm

You are advocating killing people you don’t agree with, just because they inconvenience you. Think on that, while you’re preaching about nonviolence.

Their is a big and misleading error in this Headline by calling it a move to criminalize Peaceful Protest. News Flash : Once your actions impinge on the rights of others, the protected limits of YOUR “rights” cease. Obstructing the use of public roadways from their intended use by others (including by vital emergency services) is a clear infringement of THEIR rights. Your rights do NOT give you the privilege of denying others the freedom exercising of theirs. Rights are intended to be “reasonable” not unlimited.

Yes, and that’s why protestors are prepared to be arrested. Since the right of peaceful protest is, however, enshrined in our constitution, we do *not* make it okay to kill other people for blocking your rights on the road. We make it illegal for them to do so and arrest them. SMH

1) I notice you use “scare quotes” when referring to the human rights of protestors (like not getting murdered), but not when referring to the privilege of driving a vehicle on a roadway.

2) Public roadways are *public*. Your bumper sticker-coated SUV has as little individual right to the roadway as a protestor. Emergency services can usually find other ways to get to a location. It’s not like they can’t hear scanners

3) Tell your argument that you can’t deny others the freedom of exercising their rights to all those asshole legislators trying to make broad discrimination legal based on their personal religious beliefs.

4) By your own argument, you, like the lawmakers mentioned in this article, are attempting to impinge on the right to assemble of others. So the protected limits of your rights, by your own argument, cease. Immediately. We’ll arrest you for a false offense, torture you, try you 3 times on the same offense, house troops in your home, burn anything you attempt to publish, and take your guns away. :)

Thank you Bob for your comment. I’ve always respected and valued The Intercept’s perspective from the left with out abandoning reason for emotion or pandering to the SJW’s. Unfortunately it appears that’s not the case with at least one Intercept writer, Spencer Woodman, who can’t shake the main stream media’s habit of deceitful headlines.

Bob, the Tar Sands Pipeline that was, for now, successfully stopped by peaceful protest involved blocking of roads. From what I recall the oil companies had no right to build the pipeline on reservation land. There are sensible reasons to do something illegal like block a road. Such as when a pipeline could potentially ruin the drinking water of millions of innocent people. What if it was your family’s drinking water?

I agree with you that it is illegal to obstruct the right-of-way and they should be fined and imprisoned. However, the title of the article is in no way misleading. Take the example of lawmakers attempting to impose a $1,000 fine per person per day for standing outside a business holding a sign. The 8th Amendment in part protects against excessive fines while the fine proposed has no relationship to the harm, injury, of loss incurred by a business, moreover, if there is still access to the business then any fine or penalty would be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Back to the highway matter. Protesters who cause harm or injury are extremists and should be punished for criminal offenses. What the peaceful protesters have done is radical. It is an act of civil disobedience. It is civil because it does not cause harm or injury, thus is not criminal, merely, a misdemeanor. All acts of civil disobedience cause disruption and are radical in that sense. As an act of civil disobedience these protesters should be willing to go to jail; for peaceful protests question the righteousness of the law and are ultimately judged in the court of public opinion. They may be right, they may be wrong, but standing up for what you believe against the government is patriotic. We are not servants to the government, the government is our servant. Liberty is natural, not granted.

I hope I have given you something to think about as you have done for me.

that is where you are wrong
the fact is – EVERY BILL CAN OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION
your rights are stolen by these elected whores who then imprison you and fine you and all you have to do is finance the fight all the way to the supreme court each and every time these wicked whores pass such a law.

THEY ARE EVIL.new law
the CONSTITUTION PROTECTION ACT
Elected persons who act to propose laws that appear to violate the constitution of the US will be immediately removed from office, lose their license to practices law and forever barred from holding an elected or appointed public office.

This article seems to mostly address protesters blocking transit routes. I’m all for protesting but I have very little sympathy for anyone who blocks a roadway. Blocking emergency services is absolutely unacceptable.

Guys, when the same types of bills are simultaneously posted across many Republican states at the same instant, it automatically smells like ALEC; that corporate-back helmsman of what really is the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I see a double standard by the GOP and conservatives here. When you have Cliven Bundy and his group of white supremacist dimwits “protesting” on the highways of Nevada with semi-automatic weapons pointed at BLM officials or taking over and defiling Malheur Space Preserve, you have State GOP politicians like Michelle Fiore supporting and defending their just cause against the tyrannical government.

But when you have a bunch of black or Native American protesters, now you have those same politicians using the full tyrannical forces of government.

The only thing fucked up is the amount of whataboutism and false equivalence in your post.

Only someone with a severe Marxism related brain swelling would argue that a handful of guys trespassing on a bird sanctuary in the middle of nowhere is TOTALLY THE SAME THING MAN! as a group of protesters purposely stopping traffic in a major metropolitan area.

If this becomes law and still you are going to protest by blocking roads make sure you put people way out front with flags and other warnings like signs that tell approaching drivers the road in blocked by people. Then if they hit/run down anyone they can not claim it was an accident. I doubt the supreme Court would allow this kind of law stand but there would need to be a test case which means some would need to get run down first. Any volunteers?

Let’s see how far rhose laws go in curtailing the rights of assembly and free speach. On the face these laws seam as though they me contraveining the constitution. We know they are beibg designed to stop protests as a political move against those who would oppose our nations slide into a facist dictatorship run for the benefit of oligarchs, plutocrats and kleptocrats. It is simply a step toward total suppression of citizen oponents of the overturning our constution. We must fight these bills before they become law as the new Supreme Court will likely become more and more conservative and find skewed reasoning to rule that they are constitutional. We can not allow that. Lobby your state legislatures and members before it is too late.

VP Pence’s state of INDIANA’s repugnicant legislators are attempting to pass a law allowing police to use, “any method necessary” to disperse 10 (TEN) or more persons congregating to protest!
WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

The article is misleading so read the piece of legislation , its all about obstructing ambulance, fireman or others during the performance of their duties and penalties if the person knowingly ended in death of a person . Obstruction leading to injury or death needs to be enforced

Isn’t that against our Constitution we have the right to peaceful demonstrations just because the gop r liars, haters, cheaters & hate mongers we still have the right to protest them they r not above the law either!

And so, those who claim to protect and adhere to our constitution want to breach the first amendment rights of the citizens…..for their own convenience. They disguise their actions under false flags, just as Hitler and his henchmen did in Germany.

I don’t agree with any limitations on free speech, I’m an absolutist in that regard. However the author of this piece significantly mischaracterizes the North Dakota bill which does not, “allow a motorist to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway…”. Rather, the bill simply alters civil law – and has no effect on criminal law – in that it creates a statutory bar to a plaintiff suing for negligence when plaintiff (or plaintiff’s estate) claims that a motorist accidentally (ie negligently and non-intentionally) hits a protester on a highway. This bill does not eliminate or affect criminal penalties for vehicular homicide, murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc; it only affects potential civil cases involving protesters on highways. However if the collision is intentionally caused, the injured protester can still sue for an intentional tort and a prosecutor can file criminal charges against the motorist. Clearly the language in the article is aimed at frightening people into believing that protesters can be targeted with injury or death by motorists, if motorists do that in North Dakota they remain civilly and criminally liable.

While Section 1 of the bill only addresses liability, Section 2 explicitly amends the law regarding pedestrians on roadways and states:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense.”

So, provided the driver was not breaking some other law by driving on the roadway, they will not be guilty of an offense for injury or death of a pedestrian they hit who was obstructing traffic. Based on the statement from one of these lawmakers, they absolutely aimed at keeping protesters from bringing their demonstrations onto roadways because a prosecutor would need to prove the driver’s intent was to injury or kill in order for the driver to be found guilty.

> Although the bill ostensibly requires drivers to have acted “negligently” or accidentally in killing a protestor, the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,” according to the Bismarck Tribune.

It almost sounds like he’s *suggesting* that motorists punch the accelerator rather than the brakes.

If you call the lasted protests as peaceful, then you are using selective vision and thinking. People getting shot, stoping traffic where ambulances could not pass putting the patient in danger, and many more violence occurred. The deterrent to anarchy is consequence, lack of will surely lead us down a dangerous path

I wonder how much the self-driving car manufacturers are behind this. I mean, they know that the “owners” will be in a sorry position – one protester can stand in the highway and their cars will patiently sit by and do nothing indefinitely. If they even try to take over manually and intimidate the guy out of the roadway or play chicken with him, the car will be recording everything and sending it to higher authority. So they really don’t have any option but to go beg the statehouse for a license to kill, or at least, a guarantee of some kind of process to remove the unwanted interloper from the highway.

Continued murders , assault and harassment of people of color is violence. Violent protest is assured once Jeff Sessions is the AG, refusing to enforce civil rights laws, especially as pertaining to law enforcement. As the saying goes: “No justice, no peace.”

Let’s see here most of this police violence against people of color has occurred under the Obama administration. Since when has Mr. Sessions said he will not enforce civil rights? The country hasn’t been this divided since the sixties, Obama has been in Office for 8 yrs so one doesn’t have to look far to see where the problem is. Not to mention the unlawful bombing of over 7 countries during his pathetic tenure. Me thinks he is to blame so let’s not point fingers at an incoming administration that has to clean up the massive mess the Noble Peace Prize winner has made. Oh, and as far as violence it never ends well! The hard left must realize they’ve had 8 yrs it’s over and violent protests will me met with force as it should!

Let’s see here most of this police violence against people of color has occurred under the Obama administration.

Are you a recent immigrant to America? Or maybe so far out in the hills that there are no schools, no radio stations or newspapers, no bookstores or libraries. . . but you, amazingly, have been able to access the Internet beginning with the first year of Obama’s presidency?

If the latter is the case, one wonders why you appear to have read nothing but right-wing, racist nonsense, until you tripped over The Intercept where you now share your wisdom.

Doug, I take only the most recent statistics and apply them to this argument. Maybe you should remove yourself from the ivory tower you reside in long enough to gaze across Chicago, Baltmore, LA and DC to see how much worse crime and police violence “which go hand in hand” have become and it’s happened under what could be the worst most impotent American president ever. I’ll rest here before your triggered yet again only to recoil back to the womb of liberal hypocrisy.

? Donald Trump has chosen a white nationalist as his chief strategist and a white-nationalist sympathizer as his pick for Attorney General. Like the Confederate general he is named after, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has long been a leading voice for the Old South and the conservative white backlash vote Trump courted throughout his campaign. Sessions, as a US senator from Alabama, has been the fiercest opponent in the Senate of immigration reform, a centerpiece of Trump’s agenda, and has a long history of opposition to civil rights, dating back to his days as a US Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s.

The Senate rejected Sessions for a federal judgeship during the Reagan administration because of racist statements he made and for falsely prosecuting black political activists in Alabama. He opposed the Voting Rights Act, the country’s most important civil-rights law.

…

Now Sessions will be in charge of enforcing the civil-rights laws he once opposed, like the Voting Rights Act. He’s almost certain to further weaken what’s left of the law and to encourage the kind of bogus prosecutions for voter fraud that led him to be rejected for a federal judgeship.

Sessions hardly reformed his views after he was elected to the Senate in 1996. He frequently earned an “F” rating from civil-rights groups like the NAACP and “consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda,” Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington office, told The New Republic.

Sessions is toxic for civil rights, for all the reasons cop unions and white nationalists love both Trump and Sessions.

Again, I ask you to quote Sessions saying he will not uphold our civil rights! Fact is you can not. Instead you cut and past a democrat operative and mouthpiece that appears on MSNBC on a regular basis. Come on Mona I expect more from you than this your oratory skills are lacking today.

Again, I ask you to quote Sessions saying he will not uphold our civil rights!

Oh, he’ll uphold “our civil rights,” if we’re white and Christian. If you need a quote from Jeff Sessions saying: “I will not enforce the legislation passed by Congress pursuant to the 14th and 15th Amendments,” you are a moron.

Surely the Attorney General is liable for all individual acts of racism and wrongdoing committed by all local law enforcement. That is why AG Holder was constantly berated and protested against as a racist fascist during his long reign as AG. Right…
I (would’ve) supported those actions if they had occurred but since they didn’t, I can’t imagine they’ll occur during Sessions reign unless the protests are simply diversion for (and supported by) the power elite (in the out of power Democratic Party), the “deep state” who is in open warfare with Trump for his presumed policy of detente with Russia and opposition to regime change in Syria, and the establishment media et al. Surely some of the protesters are true believers but are they just “useful idiots” for the Democratic Party establishment, deep state, and media establishment?

Holder absolutely could have done more. But we won’t see any more of this under Attorney General Sessions. There’s a reason the Fraternal Order of Police and other cop unions wildly endorsed Donald Trump. Cops generally hate Black Lives matter, as does Trump and certainly Jeff Sessions. For good reason — from their racist perspective.

There is good reason to hate black lives matter. They are violent racist thugs for the most part. They have been allowed to burn, disrupt commerce, intimidate, block interstates and physically beat whites and others who don’t support their misguided endeavors. However, I bet the farm Sessions will do everything in his power to protect their civil rights but if these thugs get too far out of control with violence you can bet your sweet ass retribution is a coming!

Peaceful for whom? When others exploit the law for gain and fail to take human rights and treaties into consideration, and now when laws will be enacted to make peaceful protests illegal, punishable by jain and higher fines – what’s the answer. This is all about monied interests using politicians to poke massive holes in the First Amendment.

I’m a staunch advocate and activist for civil liberties, but I’m not going to defend anyone’s “right” to protest in the middle of a major highway. Such actions infringe on the rights of other people. Obstructing a road leading to a construction site or something, where the people affected are those being targeted by the protest is one thing. Blocking traffic on a public highway and interfering with other people’s right to travel is not an exercise of “free speech” or the right to “peaceable assembly”.

I don’t understand this tactic anyway. Hooray, you got your 2 minutes of fame on the national news … but did you actually win any sympathy and support for your cause, or did you simply alienate a bunch of pissed-off motorists?

Yeah people tend to just ignore protest unless it interferes with their life which is half of the point, it gets you damn attention. Maybe you could learn to relate to people who have their lives interrupted or interfered by unjust policies. You should be more concerned about why they’re stopping traffic than being annoyed that you can’t get to fucking Sizzler in time for all you can eat wings

So what do you suggest people who have been historically disenfranchised do when the system and tools that are supposedly protected for them are being stripped of their power?

I find it funny how democratic people get annoyed when the people in their democracy exercise their rights. If it was you getting oppressed I’m sure you would change your tune. You seem content to bury your head in the sand and just hope these people stop complaining. Fat. Chance.

People like you who fall back on the, “I love democracy as long as it works for me, but you others in this democracy, don’t bother me with your problems”, you people are part of the problem. Instead of listening and trying to understand you tell them “Be quiet and wait your turn.”

You will reap what you sow unless you, and thousands of others like you, change your behavior for more open and compassionate communication. Unless, of course, people in power are looking to bait these protestors into an attack just so they can declare the War on Terror on the citizens.

If you’re part of that silent majority then there’s nothing to worry about. Move along. Get back to work. Nothing to see here.

I’m perfectly comfortable with people complaining, protesting, speaking out, organizing and otherwise exercising their inalienable rights. I’m not hoping that people “stop complaining” and I would never try to stifle their voices. I’d like to see millions more people being politically active.

However, your rights end where another person’s rights begin. You can broadcast your message loudly and clearly, but you don’t have a “right” to force other people to listen. When these “protesters” block a freeway, the motorists are being trapped. Their only means of escape is to abandon their vehicles. Putting them in that situation is clearly a violation of their rights.

I was protesting abusive government and civil liberties violations 20 years before anyone heard the name “Eric Garner”, so I’ve hardly been “silent”. However, I don’t care about causes like BLM or any other “identity” movements except to the extent that they fit into the larger picture. My focus is on insidious policies like NSA surveillance, the Patriot Act, the drug war and other government abuses which affect all of us.

I love that cop-out, loving “individual liberty”. You care about some individual but you don’t care about people who “identify” as something. Do people stop being people as soon as they inconvenience another individual? What if that individual works for a system that incovenicnes that other group of individuals? Are they not infringing on their rights?

Your cowardice is showing when you hide behind your buzzwords and rationalizations, like protesting the War on Drugs but saying BLM is a separate issue. You talk about “all of us” and then immediately start drawing lines and grouping people as different.

You are arguing for a “separate but equal” policy fueled by fear because of a refusal to listen or communicate with those who are being disenfranchised. Of course, you’re free to do that, but you’re a hypocrite and shouldn’t expect sympathy.

I bet Hilter and Mussolini wondered why the jews didn’t just shut up and accept annillation. The civil right laws from the 60’s didn’t happen because the blacks just walked on sidewalks, and accepted drinking from non white drinking fountains or “just shut up and be like the others boy.” Non violent protests are just that..protests…and protests in America all the way to the beginning had to make it difficult for the status quo. Tell me when protests that wasn’t a pain for the status quo actually made change? The Vietnam war was stopped by just a small portion of the American population.

Exactly. If Bridgegate in New Jersey was a public safety problem (and it was!), then so is blocking a highway. All it takes is one vehicle to not be able to get through in an emergency and you’ve got major problems on your hands. If you want to protest something go to a building with significance (state capitol or town hall or something) and picket or find a public park or get a permit to have a street closed and march there, but blocking a public street is just a dumb idea.

Unless everyone consistently ignores you and your grievances. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to block infrastructure and business. Unless you’re asking those people to lay down and die so they don’t inconvenience you anymore.

Don’t be surprised when you get oppressed and everyone tells you to just suck it up and take it on the chin like a good little wage slave.

Democracy will never survive with a population of hyper-individualist ego maniacs complaining about the problems they keep creating.

I can’t ask you to prove a negative, but you are suggesting that these pieces of legislation aren’t actually being proposed? It seems easy enough for you to confirm for yourself that they are actually being proposed. But you’re not interested in that, are you “Joe”?

“Joe” is a fuckwit who doesn’t even understand the editorial policies and ethos of the Intercept team. In another thread, he just embarrassed himself spewing all manner of easily debunked error and fantasy about what he imagines goes on among the writers and editors here.

Senate Bill 285 would require public officials to clear blocked roadways of protesters within 15 minutes using “any means necessary.”

Tomes suggested that the definition of “necessary means” would be left up to authorities.

While only one audience member was able to speak on the proposed bill, Local Government Chair Sen. James Buck said they received “a bunch” of phone calls and requests to speak in opposition to the bill — and none in support of the bill.

We need to balance freedom and justice. If you block traffic you could be arrested, misdemeanor, and pay a small fine, fair enough. Extremes of assault by motor vehicle and large fines are insane and not Constitutional. If you commit a felony during a protest a different scale comes into play.

If you commit a felony during a protest a different scale comes into play.

Why does there need to be a different scale for felonies committed during a protest? A felony is a felony. It shouldn’t matter the circumstances.

The Constitution should be the guide in these matters. These laws are an attempt, once again, to limit the parameters of our freedom. Suggestions about ‘balance’ of late are seldom anything but veiled attempts at getting limitations that support a given party’s preferences enshrined.

Exactly what I was trying to say the difference between misdemeanor and felony is the only scale of justice I implied and if You follow my remarks you know I am a strict supporter of the Constitution. Sorry if I intercommunicated my views.

“This trend of anti-protest legislation dressed up as “obstruction” bills is deeply troubling,” said Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, who views such bills as violations of the First Amendment.

Blocking traffic is not protected speech. Not all “protest” is speech. Civil disobedience involves unlawful activity by definition, and is therefore different than speech by definition. A sure way to undermine support for a right is to define it too broadly.

Punishment for violations of the law should be proportionate. Stepping on a street when you’re not supposed to should absolutely not result in a $10,000 fine or one year in jail. Beyond that, community interest in preserving the right to protest is considerably more important than interest in not inconveniencing motorists. Rationalize it all you want, but what is being done is nothing more than an effort to criminalize social protest.

Once again, there is no right to engage in civil disobedience; it is illegal by definition. There is no right to block traffic, and those who do so should expect to be arrested. Yes, the punishment should be proportionate, and the motive (protest) should be considered. My only point is that this form of protest must not be called speech. It is not protected by the First Amendment.

I’ll go one step farther: any “permit” given for a protest should be rejected – Rumsfeld’s “protest zones” and so forth. People need to get some skin in the game, and yes, sacrifices will need to be made. The key is to disobey without doing any physical damage to businesses and/or public facilities.

A law that makes it a crime to obstruct the freedom of movement of other people is not a limit on “speech”. The only condition on your inalienable “Rights” is that they cannot be exercised to violate the “Rights” of another person.

When these “protesters” block a freeway, the people trying to use it are basically trapped in their cars. They can’t go forward or backward. Their only means of escaping the situation is to abandon their vehicles. Doesn’t that seem like a violation of their rights?

Why shouldn’t it be called speech? What you’re actually arguing is that there are limits on speech, but that doesn’t sound as good.

Our constitutional right to free speech is nearly absolute only because speech is distinct from action. The surest way to erode freedom of speech is to blur that distinction. We must be willing to distinguish between protesting in the road and protesting by the side of the road.

The pushback is kind of strange. I didn’t invent the term civil disobedience. Does it have no meaning to you? Again, it’s different than speech by definition.

A sure way to undermine support for a right is to define it too broadly.

It is stunning in this day and age, where our rights are being eroded at an ever faster rate, to think that breadth of definition is even a consideration.

The definitions are laid forth in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is actually quite simple really, the pertinent parts are as follows,

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law […] abridging the freedom of speech, […] interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Laws requiring permits for assembly are already an infringement. These new laws are designed to do nothing but further impeded protest. And they are happening now because they see, correctly, that they are embarking on efforts that the public will increasingly object to.

My only point is that this form of protest must not be called speech. It is not protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps you could point to case law in support of your assertion so the rest of us may be enlightened. Your use of the word must is… revealing.

As a supporter of the goals of Black Lives Matter, an opponent of soon-to-be legislation under discussion and one who is appalled at the troglodytes who will be fronting the Trump administration, am I allowed to ask the following.

Could someone explain to me the efficacy of blocking major traffic thoroughfares as a movement building tactic. I seems to me that acts of civil disobedience should be aimed at individual or organizational perpetrators of the harm being protested, not people on their daily commute.

This tactic which has been historically discredited has a lineage loosely related to late 19th century-early 20th century anarchism encapsulated in the slogan, “Propaganda of [or by] the Deed” when a variety of violent acts were propagated as a means of inspiring the masses to rise up against the regime under attack. Blocking traffic which invites a response by the armed wings of the state apparatus tends to diminish participation in future actions by the broader public who might want their entire family to participate, but do not attend the next demonstration for fear they may be gassed or seriously hurt by flash grenades or rubber bullets.

To cut to the chase here, the Black Bloc, a contemporary exemplar of these tactics has only invited further repression on the larger mass of peaceful protesters and has been ripe for infiltration by agents provocateurs (see Toronto G20 protests as a prime example).

When I enlisted in the military I swore to protect the Constitution from all enemies…foreign and DOMESTIC. Does that mean I can kill that asshole from North Dakota since he is treating the Constitution?

“In Washington, a state where Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, there is little chance that the plan to label protestors as “economic terrorists” will advance.”

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Remember, the outgoing Presidential Administration that has expanded mass surveillance, prosecuted (or even tortured) whistleblowers and labeled journalists “co-conspirators”, and claimed the right to kill American Citizens w/o trial just on the Administration’s word that they are a terrorist, was a DEMOCRATIC PARTY Administration.

In short, these sort of bills could pop up and pass in any state. Welcome to the Fascist States of America folks.

Yeah. So while it isn’t inaccurate to say that these bills are being promoted and supported by Republicans, it might be better if the political party affiliation of the people involved take a secondary status to what these people are regardless of party: authoritarians. It is this characteristic of belief and action that matters moreso than the party affiliation. A member of any party might act in ways to restrict the freedom of citizens.

First, us lowly plebs have no polical representation– WE don’t have lobbyists. Now they want to criminalize peaceful protests as well? Go ahead, a$$holes–that will leave us with no choice but violent protest.

We COULD have political representation…if enough of us stopped playing the “two-party system” game and looked to other parties, such as the Green Party, which given its history of protest activism, will also be affected by this trend towards criminalizing peaceful protests.

Respectfully, so far everyone commenting here is wrong and these proposed bills to criminalize protesting is perfectly congruous with criminalizing gun ownership.

Recently we’ve had a run of mass killings via automobile; the way to bring safety to the people is to outlaw crowds and possible automobiles or make auto licensing onerous. All crowds should be outlawed; no market places, no protests, no religious gatherings, etc.. all shopping, comm, and religious activity should be done online. This way we can monitor your purchases, etc.

The question is whether pure power politics (realpolitik) will be more effective than cooperation. As the world becomes more interconnected, a fallback to confrontation will likely prove to be fatal in the fight for resources, either through a major war or through climate change, or both. Nobody will rock the boat if all are in.

In some sense, the striking deals should work because it is more naturally aligned with the cooperation, but the problem with Trump is that he is not interested in win-win outcomes, but win-lose outcomes.

Putin has been very good in his divede-and-conquer strategy: the West is falling apart and America is divided within.

By welcoming this division, Trump is ultimately weakening America, which became an economic superpower as part of a larger Western Alliance after World War II and also because it was united in promoting democratic values. One can argue about Korea, Vietnam, South America—there was a lot of hypocrisy and botched attempts to maintain influence.

But aligning himself with Russia is a losing proposition because Russia does not make things—they have oil and an army that’s all. China will remain an economic giant and its much more productive to harness its economic power though cooperation.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitingthe free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Those who politically gain from violating and betraying the Constitution, even the explicit words of the Constitution, should not be allowed a position of public trust.

Unfortunately, as this article describes, the opposite is often the case.

I suppose we can relax because judges can read the Constitution as easily as anyone with a high school diploma.

Until you realize one of the architects of Bush/Cheney’s torture policy sits smugly and securely on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while the imminent inauguration of a man who explicitly advocates torture — a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” — have no respect for or allegiance to the Constitution.

See the model employed by the south post Civil War. Rewriting of history, firing of educators that drew from history, statements, cause of session.. slavery…. and the systematic development of language used in textbooks describing, falsely, the war of northern aggression and state’s rights as causes of the war.

The entire apparatus for promulgating, er, propagandizing, revision, by targeting history texts, authors, banning and firing of educators… is poorly understood… and led to successive generations, esp in the South, where slavery was minimized /distorted in favor of palatable histories were promoted. ‘noble cause’, etc.

Take possession of media.
Take possession of education.
Take possession of approved history.
punish those who document facts
black list educators not in line
Deploy strategy to erect scores of ‘historical’ monuments celebrating false history
Refer to above in debates to buttress validity of false histories.
…etc..

But presenting the “correct” version of history was only half the battle; the other half was preventing “incorrect” versions from ever infiltrating Southern schools.
Before the Civil War, education was strictly a private and/or local affair.
After the Civil War, it became a subject of federal interest.
The first federal agency devoted to education was authorized by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1867, and Congress passed several laws in the 1870s aimed at establishing a national education system.

White Southerners reacted to all this with a renewed determination to prevent outsiders from maligning the reputation of their gallant fighting men by writing textbooks especially for Southern students.

One postwar author was none other than Alexander Stephens, former vice president of the Confederacy, whose portrayal of the war sounds remarkably like the version you hear from many Southerners and political conservatives today: it was a noble but doomed effort on the part of the South to preserve self-government against federal intrusion, and it had little to do with slavery.
(Note: This was the same Alexander Stephens who had proclaimed in 1861 that slavery was the “cornerstone” of Southern society and “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

As the UDC gained in political clout, its members lobbied legislatures in Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, and Florida to ban the purchase of textbooks that portrayed the South in anything less than heroic terms, or that contradicted any of the lost cause’s basic assertions.

Its reach extended not just to public schools but to tenured academia
—a little-known chapter of its propaganda effort is detailed by James Cobb in his 2005 book “Away Down South: A History of Southern Identity.”

Cobb recounts how in 1911, for instance, University of Florida history professor Enoch Banks wrote an essay for the New York Independent suggesting that slavery was the cause of secession; Banks was forced by the ensuing public outcry to resign.

Perhaps Banks should have seen that coming: seven years earlier, William E. Dodd, a history professor at Virginia’s Randolph-Macon College, had complained that to merely suggest the confederacy might not have been a noble enterprise led by lofty-minded statesmen “is to invite not only criticism but enforced resignation.”

The entire history of Southern manipulations of the history of the Civil War serve as object lessons for successful historical revisionism.

Closing a highway is constitutional protection free speech? Absurd! Just another example of overreach that hurts the cause of the left. BTW if you think that putting the safety of people in danger and making it hard for people to get to work is help the cause you need to think long and hard about what you really hope to accomplish.

What no one seems to get yet is that there is Coup going on right now.

The incoming administration run as always by the 1%, only this time in plain sight, has taken the gloves off to finish the job.

Throwing out various outrageous threats like the criminalization of peaceful protesting is the tried and true ‘misdirection’ to drain attention and public resistance while less publicized, but even more insidious, changes are pushed through.

Wow. This is practically a declaration of war by the state against their people. If these pass in those states and the people rise up, are other state’s jails going to accommodate all those criminals? Or is this who they’re going to fill Guantanamo with?

If the state has “Stand Your Ground” laws could those protesters bring guns and claim self defense when a driver charges them?

This will only end ugly for everybody. These law makers need a serious wake up call, or they’re going to get one they really don’t want.

This is a wise move since, as we witnessed in Syria, peaceful protests can quickly devolve into a civil war lasting decades and creating millions of refugees. People, of course, should be able to protest in the privacy own homes, as long as they keep the blinds closed and turn of their web cams so no one can see them.

The proposed legislation does not curtail First Amendment rights, just the right to express an opinion in public. So the USA will remain a bastion of freedom.

This is a wise move since, as we witnessed in Syria, peaceful protests can quickly devolve into a civil war lasting decades and creating millions of refugees.

Well, yeah. However, in the case of peaceful protest in, say North Dakota, the US government and its allies are unlikely to send weapons, “trainers” and foreign mercenaries to support the protesters. So those Dakota drivers should be able to clear the roads fairly quickly and end any risk of civil war.